United States Becomes Biggest Oil Producer

[ClydeR]

WASHINGTON — The United States will surpass Russia and Saudi Arabia to become the world’s largest oil producer in 2015, the International Energy Agency (IEA) forecasts.

But the IEA’s long-term energy outlook, released Tuesday, predicted the Middle East will retake its position a decade later as the dominant source of global-oil-supply growth.

American energy production is skyrocketing, led by Texas and North Dakota, as oil companies use the techniques of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to tap oil and natural gas trapped in shale rock.

More... (http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2022245001_shaleoilxml.html)

We need more fracking so we can maintain our lead in this important contest.

[Buckwheet]

We will just cozy up with Australia and get oil from them first with that new find of theirs.

[~Rocktar~]

BAH, I think we should continue the policy of sucking the rest of the world dry while keeping our own in reserve as we convert over to other energy sources. After all, as a line in a movie that I can't remember the name of once said, once the oil is gone, we will leave too and all you will have is sand.

[Back]

Leno joked about this last night. Instead of bending over for the Saudis we will be bending over for the USA!

[Back]

BAH, I think we should continue the policy of sucking the rest of the world dry while keeping our own in reserve as we convert over to other energy sources. After all, as a line in a movie that I can't remember the name of once said, once the oil is gone, we will leave too and all you will have is sand.

Man, when are you going to start thinking in terms of world citizen instead of "us vs them"?

[Candor]

Man, when are you going to start thinking in terms of world citizen instead of "us vs them"?

Speaking for myself...never...ever. Ever.

That pretty much cover it for you?

[Back]

Speaking for myself...never...ever. Ever.

That pretty much cover it for you?

Why is that? What in your mind separates you/us from them? Does that include me? If yes, or no, why?

[Warriorbird]

Man, when are you going to start thinking in terms of world citizen instead of "us vs them"?

Mark this down as me agreeing with Rocktar. We should focus on competing with China and India rather than obsessing about most of this other BS.

[Jarvan]

Why is that? What in your mind separates you/us from them? Does that include me? If yes, or no, why?

LOL. The day I get to decide who runs Iran is the day Iran gets to decide whop runs the USA. Hows that for you?

I'll try to make it more clear.

Do you think ANY other country cares two shits really about the welfare of US Citizens really? Do you think China, Iran, North Korea, or even the U.K. bases any of it's choices on what's best for the WORLD, rather then for THEIR citizen's?

I am sure you do, which just means you are even more deluded then anyone realizes.

[NinjasLeadTheWay]

LOL. The day I get to decide who runs Iran is the day Iran gets to decide whop runs the USA. Hows that for you?

I'll try to make it more clear.

Do you think ANY other country cares two shits really about the welfare of US Citizens really? Do you think China, Iran, North Korea, or even the U.K. bases any of it's choices on what's best for the WORLD, rather then for THEIR citizen's?

I am sure you do, which just means you are even more deluded then anyone realizes.

Valerie Fucking Jarret.

[Latrinsorm]

LOL. The day I get to decide who runs Iran is the day Iran gets to decide whop runs the USA. Hows that for you?The trend throughout human history has been towards larger and larger organizations, and those have become more and more stable as technology permitted. Once we were tribes. Then we were cities. Then nations. The next step is coming: look at the USSR, the United Nations, the European Union. Like every other sea change, the first steps are false starts, half-measures. The Romans, the Persians, the Islamic Empire - all were doomed to fail as agrarian meganations, but the Industrial Revolution made such polities sustainable - China, the United States, India, even Germany and Italy. Perhaps the Informational Revolution is what it took for us to get to a globe-state, or near enough.

The barrier is always the same, and it is always overcome. You think the Prussians thought any better of the Bavarians than you think of Iranians? But now they are all Germans, and when was the last time you heard of a Bavarian separatist movement? The Upper and Lower Egyptians were separate for 2000 years, then they were just Egyptians. The Irish and the English... okay, it doesn't always work out, but you get my point. To you and me there is an us and them. To the next generation, there is only embarrassing bigotry from our generation. To the next, there is only us. All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again.

[Back]

Well, in a way, we are already thinking in global terms in that we are aware of other nations and see a need to compete. Healthy competition is a good thing, I think capitalists will agree, as well as intellectuals in terms of exchanging ideas. Ultimately, we are headed towards a merge, and are already well on the way on that path.

[Methais]

Man, when are you going to start thinking in terms of world citizen instead of "us vs them"?

Do you think the rest of the world includes us in this "world" view of yours, at least as more than just someone they want to pay for everything and fight their wars for them while they tell us what assholes we are and how much they hate us and that we owe them more just because, and that their citizens should have the same rights we do in this country but if we dare cross their borders we'll be imprisoned if not worse?

What has you so convinced that the whole world is going to be nothing but a big happy circle jerk?

[crb]

This is important.

There are two components that go into manufacturing.

1. Energy
2. Labor

Even raw materials (steel, etc) that go into manufacturing are themselves a product of those two components.

China has dirt cheap labor, but pays something like 16 MCF for natural gas. In the US we have more expensive labor, but we pay like 2.5 MCF for natural gas thanks to fracking. This means, we're able to have a higher labor cost in the US yet still be globally competitive because our energy costs are so low. Manufacturing is coming back to the US because of fracking, and without it we'd likely still be in a recession. This is, in fact, a very. big. deal. for our country, and it cannot be understated. Of course natgas is not a perfect proxy for energy costs, but is a fair datapoint. Additionally natgas can be used as a feedstock in the manufacture of any petrochemical (which includes most plastics).

As long as we don't shoot ourselves in the foot with regulations, the US oil & natural gas boom is going to save our economy, in the long term. And for those liberals who find it distasteful, hold your nose and deal with it. Your social welfare programs do not get funded without good tax receipts and economic growth. So you can decide which is more important to you.

[Back]

Do you think the rest of the world includes us in this "world" view of yours, at least as more than just someone they want to pay for everything (which we do) and fight their wars for them while they tell us what assholes we are and how much they hate us and that we owe them more just because?

What has no so convinced that the whole world is going to be nothing but a big happy circle jerk?

Here comes Mr. Buzzkill with his big backpack of fear.

[Methais]

Here comes Mr. Buzzkill with his big backpack of fear.

Point out the fear mongering in my post.


Mr. Buzzkill

Perhaps if you weren't always so fucking high when you post your nonsense, you wouldn't get called out on your unrealistic stupidity all the time.

[Back]

Point out the fear mongering in my post.



Perhaps if you weren't always so fucking high when you post your nonsense, you wouldn't get called out on your unrealistic stupidity all the time.

So whats your vision of how humanity ends up?

[Methais]

So whats your vision of how humanity ends up?

I don't pretend to know, but it will never be the way you envision it until aliens invade and we defeat them.

But then the rest of the world will insist that we pay for cleanup and repairs, and then we'll be back at square one.

What has you so convinced that human nature is going to just go away one day and everyone across the world is going to hold hands and sing together? Is it just blind hope? Or is it due to some event or series of events?

[cwolff]

We need more fracking so we can maintain our lead in this important contest.

We're totally winning. China is now the #1 importer of oil! HA, You lose CHINA! You're also becoming obese.


This is important.

There are two components that go into manufacturing.

1. Energy
2. Labor

Even raw materials (steel, etc) that go into manufacturing are themselves a product of those two components.

selves in the foot with regulations, the US oil & natural gas boom is going to save our economy, in the long term. And for those liberals who find it distasteful, hold your nose and deal with it. Your social welfare programs do not get funded without good tax receipts and economic growth. So you can decide which is more important to you.

Is this an actual concept or just your concept? If raw material is a part of the Energy and Labor component I assume it's filed under energy. By this accounting we might as well just call labor energy too. In fact if we keep going back further and further in the equation then isn't everything just energy?

Speaking of those nasty liberals I think it's high time we give Barry a big congratulations for all this new oil we're producing. He could have shut that down if he wanted but it looks instead like the regulators and energy companies are pretty cozy in this whole fracking thing.

[Back]

I don't pretend to know, but it will never be the way you envision it until aliens invade and we defeat them.

But then the rest of the world will insist that we pay for cleanup and repairs, and then we'll be back at square one.

What has you so convinced that human nature is going to just go away one day and everyone across the world is going to hold hands and sing together? Is it just blind hope? Or is it due to some event or series of events?

So you think our progress will be determined by some fantastical external force rather from within. And even then things will stay the same.

Thats a pretty dim view on our existence.

I think human nature is better than you think. I don't think that holding hands together is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?

[cwolff]

So whats your vision of how humanity ends up?

Extinction. We're going to set a record too. I bet there are very few species that can go extinct as fast as homo sapiens. We're close to it now and we keep flirting with the edge. All we need is one good catalyst and it's over.

[Back]

Extinction. We're going to set a record too. I bet there are very few species that can go extinct as fast as homo sapiens. We're close to it now and we keep flirting with the edge. All we need is one good catalyst and it's over.

Life is... in it's core, a persistence in a hostile environment. Were the environment to hostile life would not persist. I think we have proven there is no environment too hostile for life to persist. Thus life will carry on.

[cwolff]

Life is... in it's core, a persistence in a hostile environment. Were the environment to hostile life would not persist. I think we have proven there is no environment too hostile for life to persist. Thus life will carry on.

Definitely. Life will go on. Just not for us.

[Latrinsorm]

Do you think the rest of the world includes us in this "world" view of yours, at least as more than just someone they want to pay for everything and fight their wars for them while they tell us what assholes we are and how much they hate us and that we owe them more just because,Your views are not reflected by empirical data. Check out this map (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/11/who-loves-and-hates-america-a-revealing-map-of-global-opinion-toward-the-u-s/). Most foreign nations are net indifferent, a whopping 4 net hate us, or 2%. Heck, there's probably more American states that hate America than foreign states, and we put them in their place easily enough.
and that their citizens should have the same rights we do in this country but if we dare cross their borders we'll be imprisoned if not worse?How many countries do you think would arrest you, a white American, just for crossing their border?
What has you so convinced that the whole world is going to be nothing but a big happy circle jerk?This is an incorrect interpretation. In the same way that you and Backlash are United States citizens but do not necessarily agree on everything, the fellow citizens of the proposed world-state would not necessarily agree on everything... but they would be fellow citizens nevertheless.

[Back]

Definitely. Life will go on. Just not for us.

True. Microbes probably have a better chance than we do. But the difference is we can make our own future.

[Parkbandit]

http://i434.photobucket.com/albums/qq69/score04w2/gifs%20and%20funny%20pics/facepalmdouble-1.jpg

[cwolff]

True. Microbes probably have a better chance than we do. But the difference is we can make our own future.

I'm not so sure about that. Well I'm pretty sure the microbes are going to be just fine long after we're gone but the rest of the sentence I don't think is correct. For one it implies that other life forms can't make their own future yet they evolve and have survived just as long or longer than we have. It also implies that we're not actively creating our future right now and have been for thousands of years. This comes down the philosophical argument about whether we actually have free will or not.

[~Rocktar~]

Man, when are you going to start thinking in terms of world citizen instead of "us vs them"?

When fucking shit like this (http://youtu.be/oJ_okAgAUGE) stops happening. This is a bit dated speech from 1973 but most of the info and concepts in it still apply. We are the most generous, giving and selfless country in the world and when the rest of the world wants to kick in and poney up for their own bills then maybe I might be less antagonistic. When the rest of the world wants to put out 250 years of blood, sweat and treasure to rise up and be free, then they can earn my respect. Riding on our coat tails or walking on the bodies of our dead troops to their freedom and then to look down on us takes any respect I may have had for them away.

I am all for one world government, one world community, OURS everyone should be a US Citizen. After all, the US has either conquered, liberated, medically tended or funded the rest of the world already and in the end, only asked for enough land to bury our dead.

[~Rocktar~]

So whats your vision of how humanity ends up?

One of 3 outcomes depending on a few important things in the next 50 or so years. One, extinction either by our own hand or others if we don't get our crap together. Two, subjugation by whoever is out there that is coming if there is no will to fight back. Or three, we get our shit together and become a civilization that carries humanity to the stars and beyond. And yes, I believe there are aliens out there coming to find us, as Carl Sagan said, the statistical chances are an absolute certainty there is life out there and in the universal scale of things, it is likely the universe is teeming with life and some of it is a lot more advanced than we are.

[Warriorbird]

How many countries do you think would arrest you, a white American, just for crossing their border?

Probably about two.

[Back]

One of 3 outcomes depending on a few important things in the next 50 or so years. One, extinction either by our own hand or others if we don't get our crap together. Two, subjugation by whoever is out there that is coming if there is no will to fight back. Or three, we get our shit together and become a civilization that carries humanity to the stars and beyond. And yes, I believe there are aliens out there coming to find us, as Carl Sagan said, the statistical chances are an absolute certainty there is life out there and in the universal scale of things, it is likely the universe is teeming with life and some of it is a lot more advanced than we are.

Your first view is tremendously pessimistic. Even if someone decides to try to wipe out humanity I don't think its even possible. Humanity is too resilient to be wiped out by human hands. In my view it would take something catastrophic like a supernova or some other celestial event for that to happen.

As for the second view I find that lazy. Thinking that some fanciful magic alien or whatever will come and save us does not inspire action on the part of the wishful.

Our destiny is in our hands. Your third view is our best chance. If for some reason there is some kind of exterior salvation out there then our chances are 2 out of three.

EDIT: I confused your post with Methias'. Your second view is also needlessly pessimistic. If we were to believe there is nothing we could do to better our civilization because of some external force where is the motivation to try?

[~Rocktar~]

Your second view is also needlessly pessimistic. If we were to believe there is nothing we could do to better our civilization because of some external force where is the motivation to try?

This is very enlightening coming from someone that believes that Socialism is a viable socio-economic-political framework. After all, in a Socialist utopia, everyone is exactly equal, no one can be more or better or higher placed so what is the motivation to try then?

[Gelston]

The Earth is too small for us to be joined. The simple reason is that humans, as a whole, like variety. We like varieties in countries, governments, etc. We may have a United Earth one day, but that will be when we have a separate entity on another planet, or dimension, or whatever the fuck.

[Back]

This is very enlightening coming from someone that believes that Socialism is a viable socio-economic-political framework. After all, in a Socialist utopia, everyone is exactly equal, no one can be more or better or higher placed so what is the motivation to try then?

Well, at the very least thats a view dependent on ourselves and not some farcical notion of an alien invasion. Besides, what you think of my, and most likely other's, belief system is not entirely accurate. I suspect you've eaten up some bullshit someone fed you about "you vs them" when in fact we are much closer to agreeing on things than not.

[~Rocktar~]

Well, at the very least thats a view dependent on ourselves and not some farcical notion of an alien invasion. Besides, what you think of my, and most likely other's, belief system is not entirely accurate. I suspect you've eaten up some bullshit someone fed you about "you vs them" when in fact we are much closer to agreeing on things than not.

Statistically assured is not farcical to anyone but you. And on the agreement thing, you would be very wrong.

[Back]

Statistically assured is not farcical to anyone but you. And on the agreement thing, you would be very wrong.

Statistically assured? Are you really telling us that you believe aliens are coming to get us and there is nothing we can do about it? Yeah, I guess I am wrong about us agreeing.

I can say with confidence.... you will not be destroyed, captured, eaten, or probed by aliens in our lifetimes.

[Gelston]

Statistically assured? Are you really telling us that you believe aliens are coming to get us and there is nothing we can do about it? Yeah, I guess I am wrong about us agreeing.

I can say with confidence.... you will not be destroyed, captured, eaten, or probed by aliens in our lifetimes.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f237/143190d1269577403-mexican-cannibal-crime-scene-photos-alarma-001-.jpg

Don't be so sure.

[Back]

I stand corrected.

[Jarvan]

So you think our progress will be determined by some fantastical external force rather from within. And even then things will stay the same.

Thats a pretty dim view on our existence.

I think human nature is better than you think. I don't think that holding hands together is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?

Tell you what Back. You can make a believer out of me.

Book a ticket to Tehran. Go there, and announce in the main square that you are there to bring their country and the rest of the world under ONE rule where EVERYONE will live in peace and prosperity.


If you ever make it out of jail. I will throw you a coming home party.

[Jarvan]

How many countries do you think would arrest you, a white American, just for crossing their border?

Mexico.

[Gelston]

North Korea too. Well, and scores of others. VISAs are big deals. Also, walking into Iran, Iraq... Many places in the Middle East... Probably not a good idea. You'll probably just get kidnapped and ransomed in many parts of Africa.

Afghanistan is a PERFECT example of why there can't be a "World" citizen. Those people don't even want to be under one nation. They don't really care to have organization above the tribal level... Well, unless their tribe is the leading tribe.

[Taernath]

Afghanistan is a PERFECT example of why there can't be a "World" citizen. Those people don't even want to be under one nation. They don't really care to have organization above the tribal level... Well, unless their tribe is the leading tribe.

To be fair though that's a universal thing. We always kind of assume that it will be the US as the head of the world government, or a world government that relies on US/western ideals, but what if it wasn't? What if it was Russia that led it, and being gay was illegal? What if it was India, and there was a rigid caste system? I'd imagine even living under Canadian rule would be distasteful for some Americans.

[Gelston]

To be fair though that's a universal thing. We always kind of assume that it will be the US as the head of the world government, or a world government that relies on US/western ideals, but what if it wasn't? What if it was Russia that led it, and being gay was illegal? What if it was India, and there was a rigid caste system? I'd imagine even living under Canadian rule would be distasteful for some Americans.

True enough. That is why I doubt we can have a one Earth Government, without like... Having other planets colonized and such.

[Warriorbird]

North Korea too. Well, and scores of others. VISAs are big deals. Also, walking into Iran, Iraq... Many places in the Middle East... Probably not a good idea. You'll probably just get kidnapped and ransomed in many parts of Africa.

Afghanistan is a PERFECT example of why there can't be a "World" citizen. Those people don't even want to be under one nation. They don't really care to have organization above the tribal level... Well, unless their tribe is the leading tribe.

Yeah, Iran and North Korea were the two that I thought would lead to an immediate arrest.

[Latrinsorm]

The Earth is too small for us to be joined. The simple reason is that humans, as a whole, like variety. We like varieties in countries, governments, etc. We may have a United Earth one day, but that will be when we have a separate entity on another planet, or dimension, or whatever the fuck.You could have said the same thing substituting "cities" for "countries" three thousand years ago, and you would have been just as wrong. What we like is freedom and the safety to enjoy that freedom: even more than wealth, even more than dope. Every individual has to sleep sooner or later, so we stay with the tribe or die. Then one person (LeBron James) gets the bright idea to bring a whole bunch of tribes together and makes the first city, and the arms race is on.
Mexico.Unfamiliar with the documentary series The Bridge, I take it.
North Korea too. Well, and scores of others. VISAs are big deals.Whoa whoa whoa there Steely Dan, who said anything about walking into a country illegally? It's pretty racist of you to assume a white person wouldn't migrate legally.
Also, walking into Iran, Iraq... Many places in the Middle East... Probably not a good idea. You'll probably just get kidnapped and ransomed in many parts of Africa.You're liable to get murdered walking around in Detroit too. That doesn't mean the United States government murders foreign nationals willy nilly. The United States has very good reasons for murdering the foreign nationals it does.
Afghanistan is a PERFECT example of why there can't be a "World" citizen. Those people don't even want to be under one nation. They don't really care to have organization above the tribal level... Well, unless their tribe is the leading tribe.No, Afghanistan (and the Balkans and the Baltics and Ireland and etc.) are perfect examples of why you can't FORCE people to be a member of any political unit they don't want to be. The various peoples and kingdoms of England were quick to resume bloody internecine warfare against each other as soon as they got rid of the Romans that forced them into a unit... but they eventually moved into that exact same unit. That they forgot this lesson and arbitrarily partitioned the Middle East and Eastern Europe is darkly amusing, but all the more reason that we should not forget it.

Bottom line, there's only one kind of people: humans. (Suck on that, dolphins.) All of us spiteful, stupid, and violent, but ultimately unable to resist coming together.

[Latrinsorm]

One of 3 outcomes depending on a few important things in the next 50 or so years. One, extinction either by our own hand or others if we don't get our crap together. Two, subjugation by whoever is out there that is coming if there is no will to fight back. Or three, we get our shit together and become a civilization that carries humanity to the stars and beyond. And yes, I believe there are aliens out there coming to find us, as Carl Sagan said, the statistical chances are an absolute certainty there is life out there and in the universal scale of things, it is likely the universe is teeming with life and some of it is a lot more advanced than we are.Life out there, sure. We are alive, so someone else is too. But if interstellar travel turns out to be just impossible (or sufficiently unfeasible), there's no reason to fear alien invasion. I can conceive of all kinds of advanced technologies, it doesn't make any of them inevitable.

[Gelston]

You could have said the same thing substituting "cities" for "countries" three thousand years ago, and you would have been just as wrong. What we like is freedom and the safety to enjoy that freedom: even more than wealth, even more than dope. Every individual has to sleep sooner or later, so we stay with the tribe or die. .

Three thousand years ago, the world had a lot less people in it and seemed a lot larger.


No, Afghanistan (and the Balkans and the Baltics and Ireland and etc.) are perfect examples of why you can't FORCE people to be a member of any political unit they don't want to be. The various peoples and kingdoms of England were quick to resume bloody internecine warfare against each other as soon as they got rid of the Romans that forced them into a unit... but they eventually moved into that exact same unit. That they forgot this lesson and arbitrarily partitioned the Middle East and Eastern Europe is darkly amusing, but all the more reason that we should not forget it.

Yes, you can't force them. Most people on Earth, I'd gather, don't want a one world government.... Which sorta proves my point that it ain't happening.

[Latrinsorm]

Three thousand years ago, the world had a lot less people in it and seemed a lot larger.What does that have to do with variety vs. safety?
Yes, you can't force them. Most people on Earth, I'd gather, don't want a one world government.... Which sorta proves my point that it ain't happening."isn't" and "can't be" are two very different things. If you had said the former, certainly I would have agreed. To believe it is impossible because it's not happening right this second is ill-advised.

[Gelston]

What does that have to do with variety vs. safety?

Um, what does it matter? Cities grew from villages, which grew into nations, which conquered other nations, then people would rebel or be whittled apart by outside forces and tear it back down to many smaller nations.


"isn't" and "can't be" are two very different things. If you had said the former, certainly I would have agreed. To believe it is impossible because it's not happening right this second is ill-advised.

I didn't say it is impossible. I actually said a way I felt it would be possible. The way things are today, it isn't going to happen, short of force.... And I don't think any one nation has the power to force it.

[~Rocktar~]

Life out there, sure. We are alive, so someone else is too. But if interstellar travel turns out to be just impossible (or sufficiently unfeasible), there's no reason to fear alien invasion. I can conceive of all kinds of advanced technologies, it doesn't make any of them inevitable.

Lord Kelvin of the Royal Society of Edinburgh made some proclamations in his lifetime. Among them were:

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax."
"Radio has no future."
"There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement."

I prefer a different approach embodied here:


http://youtu.be/JwzrhuC4dXg

Simply put, just because we think something is impossible does not make it so. Impossible is often used by people when they mean either very difficult, they don't know how, they are too lazy to do it or they are too afraid to try. We already have made interstellar travel as we have sent things beyond this solar system. Now the question remains, will we, as a species, get our crap together and become a galactic civilization regardless of others that may be out there or will we descend back down the ladder of development and die off figuratively or literally?

[Latrinsorm]

Simply put, just because we think something is impossible does not make it so. Impossible is often used by people when they mean either very difficult, they don't know how, they are too lazy to do it or they are too afraid to try.By the same token, just because we think something is possible does not make it so. We don't think life is possible, we demonstrate it by our existence. Where there is one there is another, and another.
We already have made interstellar travel as we have sent things beyond this solar system. Now the question remains, will we, as a species, get our crap together and become a galactic civilization regardless of others that may be out there or will we descend back down the ladder of development and die off figuratively or literally?What you describe is as much interstellar travel as Curly Bill was an astronaut. Or, for that matter, as much as Neil Armstrong was an interplanetary traveller. Getting off this planet is a start, but until you get to another you're "extra-", not "inter-".

[Methais]

So you think our progress will be determined by some fantastical external force rather from within. And even then things will stay the same.

Thats a pretty dim view on our existence.

I think human nature is better than you think. I don't think that holding hands together is a bad thing. Why would that be a bad thing?

I never said it was a bad thing. I'd be just as thrilled about it as you are. I also live in reality though and can acknowledge that human nature won't allow that to ever happen, at least not for an extremely long time from now. Unless all world leaders are forced to smoke pot while in office.

[Latrinsorm]

I never said it was a bad thing. I'd be just as thrilled about it as you are. I also live in reality though and can acknowledge that human nature won't allow that to ever happen, at least not for an extremely long time from now. Unless all world leaders are forced to smoke pot while in office.What is it about human nature that accepts organizations up to the country scale but not larger? Doesn't that seem an arbitrary distinction?

What's the difference between worrying about what an Iranian will want you to do and worrying about what a Californian will want you to do? You may not have liked Representative Pelosi's speakership, but you did not reject living in the United States entirely. (I mean, as far as I know.)

[Warriorbird]

What is it about human nature that accepts organizations up to the country scale but not larger? Doesn't that seem an arbitrary distinction?

What's the difference between worrying about what an Iranian will want you to do and worrying about what a Californian will want you to do? You may not have liked Representative Pelosi's speakership, but you did not reject living in the United States entirely. (I mean, as far as I know.)

Organizations/empires of that size fail far more rapidly than countries. They overextend.

[Latrinsorm]

Organizations/empires of that size fail far more rapidly than countries. They overextend.In the agrarian era, sure. Post-industrial, not at all. The United States is over 3 times bigger than the Roman Empire ever was (even if you don't count Alaska), and so much more stable it's a joke. They don't call it the Industrial Revolution because it was no big deal, the arithmetic for the cost vs. benefit of a soldier (worker, farmer) completely changed.

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia was smaller than California and disintegrated. Size isn't the sole or determining factor for stability.

[Warriorbird]

In the agrarian era, sure. Post-industrial, not at all. The United States is over 3 times bigger than the Roman Empire ever was (even if you don't count Alaska), and so much more stable it's a joke. They don't call it the Industrial Revolution because it was no big deal, the arithmetic for the cost vs. benefit of a soldier (worker, farmer) completely changed.

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia was smaller than California and disintegrated. Size isn't the sole or determining factor for stability.

Really? Or are you just using us as anecdotal evidence in spite of our "exceptionalism"?

[Shaps]

I consider the evolution of a society similiar regardless of what era.

There tends to be a trend... small communities, outreach, trade, monetary disparity begins, creature comforts, ruling/elite/scholastic class, slowly those that work together for the greater good - now work for the "upper class", the society expands in land/wealth/education.... so on so on... THEN...

The ruling elite overplay their hand and the system collapses, upending the working class and pushing everyone back to a level - hard working - rational playing field.

This is of course a simplistic statement.. but look at the rise/fall of any major power in human history.. and the traits/similiarities are absurd. We should be very careful over the next 50 years as a nation, or we will simply be the next great society in the history books.

[Latrinsorm]

Really? Or are you just using us as anecdotal evidence in spite of our "exceptionalism"?Very, very really. If I can get 4 times the crop yield, I only need [1/4 the farmers and 1/4 the farmland] or I can have [dramatic population growth] or [enormous surplus] or some combination to a lesser degree. Government is expensive, after all.

And like I said before, Germany and Italy are just as good (really better) examples of this as we are. Germany's problem was too much stability. If they had dissolved into former component states after WWI there could not possibly have been a WW2 the way there was. Yugoslavia didn't invade anybody, you know what I am saying?
I consider the evolution of a society similiar regardless of what era.

There tends to be a trend... small communities, outreach, trade, monetary disparity begins, creature comforts, ruling/elite/scholastic class, slowly those that work together for the greater good - now work for the "upper class", the society expands in land/wealth/education.... so on so on... THEN...

The ruling elite overplay their hand and the system collapses, upending the working class and pushing everyone back to a level - hard working - rational playing field.

This is of course a simplistic statement.. but look at the rise/fall of any major power in human history.. and the traits/similiarities are absurd. We should be very careful over the next 50 years as a nation, or we will simply be the next great society in the history books.The question is... did they have a choice? The only way the Romans could keep any measure of peace in their enormous empire was an enormous army, but this army was too expensive so they had to engage in continual conquest, which meant they needed an even bigger army, and that spirals out of control really quickly - ironically the repeated civil wars prolonged the life of the Empire by decimating the armies and giving the remnants fresh lands to conquer, repeating the process. It's not a coincidence that the last century was the first to talk about Departments/Ministries of Defense rather than War, or that countries used to consider it SOP to demand crippling reparations from the vanquished. They weren't (just) being dicks, they needed the money.

[Warriorbird]

Very, very really. If I can get 4 times the crop yield, I only need [1/4 the farmers and 1/4 the farmland] or I can have [dramatic population growth] or [enormous surplus] or some combination to a lesser degree. Government is expensive, after all.

And like I said before, Germany and Italy are just as good (really better) examples of this as we are. Germany's problem was too much stability. If they had dissolved into former component states after WWI there could not possibly have been a WW2 the way there was. Yugoslavia didn't invade anybody, you know what I am saying?

You have to remember the comparative size of these countries. The Soviet Union and pre end of WW2 Germany are more realistic examples. You also just argued for Germany being smaller. You're also sort of shamelessly ignoring the Byzantine Empire for a Western Empire bias. "Rome" had issues because of corruption from size. "Eastern Rome" lasted for quite a while longer.

[Shaps]

Very, very really. If I can get 4 times the crop yield, I only need [1/4 the farmers and 1/4 the farmland] or I can have [dramatic population growth] or [enormous surplus] or some combination to a lesser degree. Government is expensive, after all.

And like I said before, Germany and Italy are just as good (really better) examples of this as we are. Germany's problem was too much stability. If they had dissolved into former component states after WWI there could not possibly have been a WW2 the way there was. Yugoslavia didn't invade anybody, you know what I am saying?The question is... did they have a choice? The only way the Romans could keep any measure of peace in their enormous empire was an enormous army, but this army was too expensive so they had to engage in continual conquest, which meant they needed an even bigger army, and that spirals out of control really quickly - ironically the repeated civil wars prolonged the life of the Empire by decimating the armies and giving the remnants fresh lands to conquer, repeating the process. It's not a coincidence that the last century was the first to talk about Departments/Ministries of Defense rather than War, or that countries used to consider it SOP to demand crippling reparations from the vanquished. They weren't (just) being dicks, they needed the money.

I just consider it human nature... there are the physically strong/weak, the mentally strong/weak, those in between, those outside the norm.. so on and so forth.... There are balances... Imagine to yourself (and others weigh in)... How many younger individuals do you know that say they want to be a farmer/electrician/plumber/mechanic/driver/etc.... blue collar.. middle class jobs... how many realize that those jobs actually are a respectable trade and way to support yourself and your family?

As the years have passed.. in my experience fewer and fewer.. More and more people want the amenities or social/intellectual/theory jobs.. without realizing.. all of their ideas have to actual be completed by someone else.

This debate would be great, but would only really work in a face to face sitting, as there are so many factors.. but hopefully, just slightly my point is understood.. though I doubt it.

[Thondalar]

LOL. The day I get to decide who runs Iran is the day Iran gets to decide whop runs the USA. Hows that for you?

I'll try to make it more clear.

Do you think ANY other country cares two shits really about the welfare of US Citizens really? Do you think China, Iran, North Korea, or even the U.K. bases any of it's choices on what's best for the WORLD, rather then for THEIR citizen's?

I am sure you do, which just means you are even more deluded then anyone realizes.

I, for one, am fully aware of how deluded he is. For the record.

[Warriorbird]

I, for one, am fully aware of how deluded he is. For the record.

Sometimes he claims things he doesn't believe in to inspire discussion. Sometimes not.

[Latrinsorm]

You have to remember the comparative size of these countries. The Soviet Union and pre end of WW2 Germany are more realistic examples. You also just argued for Germany being smaller. You're also sort of shamelessly ignoring the Byzantine Empire for a Western Empire bias. "Rome" had issues because of corruption from size.I would count the Soviet Union as the first truly international polity, not comparable to any country. With that said, the Soviet Union competed with (and in some areas surpassed) the United States using one of the most ridiculous political/economic systems ever conceived, and lasting 70 years is no joke even for a mere country.

Size is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the conglomeration came about. When Germany (or England or Spain) decided on it for themselves, they stuck with it, even when their unit was ten times larger than other "countries". Of course larger political units are capable of more anything, including violence, but this is missing the point.

Everything I said applies just as well to the Byzantine Empire. Historians convinced themselves that it (either one) was a continuous state when it was in fact an unceasing series of collapse and rebirth. Was this because they were racist against and harbored profound inferiority complexes to Islam? I don't know, you'd have to ask them. That the Byzantine Empire's fabricated duration was longer than the Western Empire's fabricated duration is only evidence of superior fabrication.

[Warriorbird]

I would count the Soviet Union as the first truly international polity, not comparable to any country. With that said, the Soviet Union competed with (and in some areas surpassed) the United States using one of the most ridiculous political/economic systems ever conceived, and lasting 70 years is no joke even for a mere country.

Size is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how the conglomeration came about. When Germany (or England or Spain) decided on it for themselves, they stuck with it, even when their unit was ten times larger than other "countries". Of course larger political units are capable of more anything, including violence, but this is missing the point.

Everything I said applies just as well to the Byzantine Empire. Historians convinced themselves that it (either one) was a continuous state when it was in fact an unceasing series of collapse and rebirth. Was this because they were racist against and harbored profound inferiority complexes to Islam? I don't know, you'd have to ask them. That the Byzantine Empire's fabricated duration was longer than the Western Empire's fabricated duration is only evidence of superior fabrication.

The conviction that a vast worldwide empire would work particularly well is nearly up there with the conviction that Communism (or Objectivism) are a good way to run a country. You also can't use something as an example and then deny its existence (unless you're a philosophy major).

[Latrinsorm]

I just consider it human nature... there are the physically strong/weak, the mentally strong/weak, those in between, those outside the norm.. so on and so forth.... There are balances... Imagine to yourself (and others weigh in)... How many younger individuals do you know that say they want to be a farmer/electrician/plumber/mechanic/driver/etc.... blue collar.. middle class jobs... how many realize that those jobs actually are a respectable trade and way to support yourself and your family?

As the years have passed.. in my experience fewer and fewer.. More and more people want the amenities or social/intellectual/theory jobs.. without realizing.. all of their ideas have to actual be completed by someone else.I believe my position on all versions of the "kids these days" argument is well established.

[Thondalar]

Your views are not reflected by empirical data. Check out this map (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/11/who-loves-and-hates-america-a-revealing-map-of-global-opinion-toward-the-u-s/). Most foreign nations are net indifferent, a whopping 4 net hate us, or 2%. Heck, there's probably more American states that hate America than foreign states, and we put them in their place easily enough.

Good attempt, I give you an "A" for effort. I guess it boils down to what defines hate? How badly do you have to dislike someone before you hate them? By this very map you linked, the majority of the world has an opinion of -10 to +10. That's a pretty wide gap. To me, any negative is just such...if it's even -1, that would indicate the balance is in favor of dislike, since that's pretty much how these "polls" work. I'm surprised at you Latrin, you normally don't use such open-ended data to back up your contrarianism...oh wait...


How many countries do you think would arrest you, a white American, just for crossing their border?

Illegally? All of them. Since you seem to like to look things up, take a gander at immigration policies of the rest of the world compared to the United States. We are EASILY the most liberal already...but hell, let's have that immigration reform anyway. Tired, poor, huddled masses, right?


This is an incorrect interpretation. In the same way that you and Backlash are United States citizens but do not necessarily agree on everything, the fellow citizens of the proposed world-state would not necessarily agree on everything... but they would be fellow citizens nevertheless.

Right, because, every nation already has 100% acceptance within their own borders.

[Latrinsorm]

The conviction that a vast worldwide empire would work particularly well is nearly up there with the conviction that Communism (or Objectivism) are a good way to run a country.How could a country stretch from sea to sea? Even a slender man on horse couldn't cross it in a timely manner, good luck governing that! How could a Heptarchy become a Monarchy? Maybe in your hippie circle jerk world those 6 other kings will just accept not being kings anymore, but in the real world... well, that's exactly what happened.

Of course there are problems to a worldwide political unit, but they have the same answer as every human problem: technology and the new normal. 1800s Britain took months to project force to India, they lost their global empire. With cwolff's new drones, we can hit anyone, anywhere, in an hour. All the layers of global bureaucracy would be inconceivably expensive to the same 1800s Brits. With our iPhones (et al), we are inconceivably wealthy. Ben Franklin didn't trust those Germans. They're okay by Jarvan, but he draws the line at Iranians.

It's the same old story, and it never stopped us before.

[Latrinsorm]

Good attempt, I give you an "A" for effort. I guess it boils down to what defines hate? How badly do you have to dislike someone before you hate them? By this very map you linked, the majority of the world has an opinion of -10 to +10. That's a pretty wide gap. To me, any negative is just such...if it's even -1, that would indicate the balance is in favor of dislike, since that's pretty much how these "polls" work. I'm surprised at you Latrin, you normally don't use such open-ended data to back up your contrarianism...oh wait...I guess pointing out that I said "net hate" and "net indifferent" counts as being contrarian, huh? Oh well. If being contr-aryanism is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Illegally?Ahem: Whoa whoa whoa there Steely Dan, who said anything about walking into a country illegally? (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?86834-United-States-Becomes-Biggest-Oil-Producer&p=1609612#post1609612) You might as well say breaking into a bank is illegal, therefore everyone who walks into a bank gets arrested, therefore every black person who walks into a bank gets arrested, therefore banks hate blacks.

Walking into a country illegally is illegal, therefore everyone who walks into a foreign country gets arrested, therefore Americans who walk into a foreign country get arrested, therefore foreign countries hate Americans.

You show me the difference in the form of the argument.
Right, because, every nation already has 100% acceptance within their own borders.I didn't say they were friends. I said they were each Americans. Methais isn't clamoring to have Backlash deported. (As far as I know.) Backlash isn't endeavoring to repeal Methais' 5th Amendment rights, or forbid him from seeking the office of the Presidency.

[Thondalar]

I guess pointing out that I said "net hate" and "net indifferent" counts as being contrarian, huh? Oh well. If being contr-aryanism is wrong, I don't want to be right.

You posted that map to counter the assertion that a lot, perhaps even most, of the rest of the world hates the US. How did they come to the data for the map you posted? Did they go to each leader of each nation and ask "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you hate America's stinking guts?" No. Of course not. It was data gleaned from a Pew poll of countries of the world. Who vetted this stuff? Who verified the poll counts for Djibouti? Who knows. This is probably what you wanted all along, so I'll be your huckleberry...does a group of youths burning GW in effigy equal hating America? In Iran? In Texas? What percentage of the population of a country has to pick "10" on a scale of 1 to 10 to counteract the "1"'s? If you polled ten million citizens of Iran, how many would be enough to officially label that country as "hating" us? How often do people pick 1 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 for anything? Does it have to be a 10 to officially be labeled "hate", or does anything over 5 work? Back to my -1 is still negative...


Ahem: Whoa whoa whoa there Steely Dan, who said anything about walking into a country illegally? (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?86834-United-States-Becomes-Biggest-Oil-Producer&p=1609612#post1609612) You might as well say breaking into a bank is illegal, therefore everyone who walks into a bank gets arrested, therefore every black person who walks into a bank gets arrested, therefore banks hate blacks.

Walking into a country illegally is illegal, therefore everyone who walks into a foreign country gets arrested, therefore Americans who walk into a foreign country get arrested, therefore foreign countries hate Americans.

You show me the difference in the form of the argument.

This is why nobody takes you seriously, although I try to. You're like a more educated Shawn Spencer.


I didn't say they were friends. I said they were each Americans. Methais isn't clamoring to have Backlash deported. (As far as I know.) Backlash isn't endeavoring to repeal Methais' 5th Amendment rights, or forbid him from seeking the office of the Presidency.

Fair enough. My point in this was simply we're too big. America, by itself, is fucking huge. Compared to other countries in the world, we're what in total land area, third? And the vast majority of our land area is completely livable , whereas China and Russia have large areas of tundra that are technically livable but there really isn't a whole lot going on there. An attempt at a global government would be fucking horrible, just on principle. Hell, our attempts at a national government are fucking horrible, because of the fact that we try to legislate morality, if nothing else.

There are only two ways a global government would work. 1) Everyone on the planet loses their identity. No religion, no history, no nationality. 2) Everyone on the planet agrees to let everyone else on the planet live whatever life they want to as long as it doesn't directly hinder/affect their own way of life (within a reasonable legal frame). Which one will happen first, who knows.

[Gelston]

In the agrarian era, sure. Post-industrial, not at all. The United States is over 3 times bigger than the Roman Empire ever was (even if you don't count Alaska), and so much more stable it's a joke. They don't call it the Industrial Revolution because it was no big deal, the arithmetic for the cost vs. benefit of a soldier (worker, farmer) completely changed.

Meanwhile, Yugoslavia was smaller than California and disintegrated. Size isn't the sole or determining factor for stability.

I think you overuse the term Agrarian. The Spanish had a giant empire before the industrial revolution. The Romans controlled more land than Nazi Germany did before the Industrial Revolution. The Ottomans held a lot of land before and into the Industrial revolution.

PS, the Roman were VERY industrious. The had as much industry as was possible. They had an army, under Augustus, of 35 Legions, which was atleast 150,000 legionaries. They were all wearing chainmail, no ifs, ands, or buts. Ever legionary was in chainmail. Making that much armor, out of iron, is pretty damn industrious to me. And this was before Jesus was born.

Empires rise, Empires fall.

[Warriorbird]

How could a country stretch from sea to sea? Even a slender man on horse couldn't cross it in a timely manner, good luck governing that! How could a Heptarchy become a Monarchy? Maybe in your hippie circle jerk world those 6 other kings will just accept not being kings anymore, but in the real world... well, that's exactly what happened.

Of course there are problems to a worldwide political unit, but they have the same answer as every human problem: technology and the new normal. 1800s Britain took months to project force to India, they lost their global empire. With cwolff's new drones, we can hit anyone, anywhere, in an hour. All the layers of global bureaucracy would be inconceivably expensive to the same 1800s Brits. With our iPhones (et al), we are inconceivably wealthy. Ben Franklin didn't trust those Germans. They're okay by Jarvan, but he draws the line at Iranians.

It's the same old story, and it never stopped us before.

Unfortunately along with the drones government hit web 2.0.

[Candor]

Wasn't there some really huge oil field found under the Gulf of Mexico a few years ago? It was going to take a few years to start mining it. Haven't heard about it for some time.

[Latrinsorm]

You posted that map to counter the assertion that a lot, perhaps even most, of the rest of the world hates the US. How did they come to the data for the map you posted? Did they go to each leader of each nation and ask "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you hate America's stinking guts?" No. Of course not. It was data gleaned from a Pew poll of countries of the world. Who vetted this stuff? Who verified the poll counts for Djibouti? Who knows. This is probably what you wanted all along, so I'll be your huckleberry...does a group of youths burning GW in effigy equal hating America? In Iran? In Texas? What percentage of the population of a country has to pick "10" on a scale of 1 to 10 to counteract the "1"'s? If you polled ten million citizens of Iran, how many would be enough to officially label that country as "hating" us? How often do people pick 1 or 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 for anything? Does it have to be a 10 to officially be labeled "hate", or does anything over 5 work? Back to my -1 is still negative...Here's the thing: information with some uncertainty is always better than no information. (Best of all is information with quantifiable uncertainty, of course.) I don't understand how Methais making a claim with no empirical backing at all is less deserving of reproach than my making a claim with empirical backing of some kind. If you want to define -1 as hate, bully for you. You now have data to apply that definition to. What data did Methais use? What definition? And I'm the bad guy? I always tell the truth, even when I lie.
This is why nobody takes you seriously, although I try to. You're like a more educated Shawn Spencer.I take that as a compliment, which I believe is how you intended it, and I can see the similarities. We each trade on asymmetry in observational training, but I think a crucial distinction is Shawn keeps his method a secret (or tries). If anything, I go on way too much about my method (in my case, statistical empiricism). He would never drown you in numbers and figures, he'd just pull the puzzle apart. Obviously, the show only works if Shawn has short term, inarguable outcomes to back his predictions up: he can't be an economist or sports analyst.

With all that said, I don't see why it's so hard to address the logic.
There are only two ways a global government would work. 1) Everyone on the planet loses their identity. No religion, no history, no nationality. 2) Everyone on the planet agrees to let everyone else on the planet live whatever life they want to as long as it doesn't directly hinder/affect their own way of life (within a reasonable legal frame). Which one will happen first, who knows.My whole point is "nationality" is a recent development, one whose invention was fraught with the same problems you bring up. There were plenty of cities with lousy government, internal squabbling, proud histories... but the overwhelming majority of the world now lives in nation-states all the same. Just because a nation is all we've ever known doesn't mean it is eternal, immutable, inescapable.
I think you overuse the term Agrarian. The Spanish had a giant empire before the industrial revolution. The Romans controlled more land than Nazi Germany did before the Industrial Revolution. The Ottomans held a lot of land before and into the Industrial revolution.

PS, the Roman were VERY industrious. The had as much industry as was possible. They had an army, under Augustus, of 35 Legions, which was atleast 150,000 legionaries. They were all wearing chainmail, no ifs, ands, or buts. Ever legionary was in chainmail. Making that much armor, out of iron, is pretty damn industrious to me. And this was before Jesus was born.I think the very ephemerality of that Roman "control" is evidence enough of their agrarian nature. I also think you're interpreting this as some kind of value judgment, that describing the Romans as agrarian implies they were stupid and lazy. (They were stupid and lazy, of course, but not because they were agrarian. Ha! Ha! Little joke.) Making 150,000,000,000 suits of chainmail (math c/o ~Rocktar~) by hand is very industrious, of course, but the mere fact of making it by hand is why they are pre-industrial.

I would say the Ottomans followed the Roman script very closely. Spain was more a shell game than an empire: now I'm king of Germany! now I'm king of the Aztecs! etc. Look at actual control rather than perfect pretty maps, and you see through the propaganda.

[Gelston]

They were not preindustrial. They had mass production, they had division of labor, they had social classes, they recieved and sent communications beyond where they lived(people in Rome knew about happenings in Parthia, for example) and they were large urban dwellers with large urban centers(Think of the theaters, aqueducts, fountains, other things they created for city living all over Europe.) They concentrated on living in cities. Rome itself had over 1,000,000 inhabitants at its height. When they moved to Constantinople, that too eventually broke 1,000,000. They were very much more focused on city dwelling then the countrysides.

They were before the Industrial Revolution, but they were not a preindustrial society by ANY means of the definition.

[Methais]

This thread isn't meeting the PC standards of ridiculousness and chaos.

I object.

[Latrinsorm]

They were not preindustrial. They had mass production, they had division of labor, they had social classes, they recieved and sent communications beyond where they lived(people in Rome knew about happenings in Parthia, for example) and they were large urban dwellers with large urban centers(Think of the theaters, aqueducts, fountains, other things they created for city living all over Europe.) They concentrated on living in cities. Rome itself had over 1,000,000 inhabitants at its height. When they moved to Constantinople, that too eventually broke 1,000,000. They were very much more focused on city dwelling then the countrysides.

They were before the Industrial Revolution, but they were not a preindustrial society by ANY means of the definition.Here is my take on your daffy-nition:

mass production - relevant to industrialization (+) but still using an agrarian means of production (x)
division of labor - existed in every human society since before history (x)
social classes - see above (x)
communication - an interesting point, but when the Pony Express counts as communication it is clearly not sufficient to indicate industrialization (x)
urbanization - I would argue a stumbling block on the road to industrialization: why do you think the pre-existing city of New York saw very few factories while the until then piece of garbage town Boston saw a huge boom in factories on its way to becoming a piece of garbage city? The only factory you ever heard of in NYC made shirtwaists, hardly a major factor in industry. Similar story with London vs. Manchester (although I don't know to what extent Manchester is a piece of garbage, Robin van Persie's presence makes it pretty easy to guess). (x)

But this goes to a larger point: I feel like you keep making distinctions like urban/rural, rich/poor, and while these (like the rest of socioeconomics) are tied up with industrial/agrarian they are not equal to them. How about this - let's each of us find sources for the Roman economy's division by sector. When we get figures we can agree on, we can compare that to various present day countries and see which the Romans' divisions are most like.

[Gelston]

If you look at the exact definition of "Preindustrial society" it is indicative by a clear lack of one or all of those. Meeting all those criteria = industrialized. Ancient Rome had a very large industry, including the crafting of metals, production of steel, massive mining operations, etc. The exact definition of an Industrial society, as opposed to an agrarian, is the tendency to focus on urban sprawl... Which Ancient Rome did. Yes, it doesn't compare to our current production values, but it was many, many years ago. 1000 years from now when they out produce us by a very large margin, will we be considered a non industrialize nation?

Again, look up the terms Agrarian society and Industrial society, and for shits and giggles, look up Pre-industrial society. I think you have no idea what agrarian means.

[Latrinsorm]

If you look at the exact definition of "Preindustrial society" it is indicative by a clear lack of one or all of those. Meeting all those criteria = industrialized. Ancient Rome had a very large industry, including the crafting of metals, production of steel, massive mining operations, etc. The exact definition of an Industrial society, as opposed to an agrarian, is the tendency to focus on urban sprawl... Which Ancient Rome did. Yes, it doesn't compare to our current production values, but it was many, many years ago. 1000 years from now when they out produce us by a very large margin, will we be considered a non industrialize nation?For the last time, scale is not relevant. If you make things with your hands, you are not industrialized. People have been making things with their hands since before history, since before people. If you use the wind or the water or the windy water of steam to make things, now you are talking. And the Romans did this... but to a vanishingly small degree. It's a clever trick of grammar (and I mean that sincerely, even Great Liar Gibbon could do no better): "we used mills and we made millions of suits of armor". Each of those is true, but the implied link is a lie. A damned lie!!
Again, look up the terms Agrarian society and Industrial society, and for shits and giggles, look up Pre-industrial society. I think you have no idea what agrarian means.Okay:

"In sociology, industrial society refers to a society driven by the use of technology to enable mass production, supporting a large population with a high capacity for division of labour. Such a structure developed in the west in the period of time following the Industrial Revolution, and replaced the agrarian societies of the Pre-modern, Pre-industrial age."
The Romans were before the Industrial Revolution, therefore they were not an industrial society.

"The first industrialized country was the United Kingdom, followed by Belgium."
The Romans were certainly before the UK, therefore they were not industrialized.

Are we done playing with arbitrary definitions now? Can we get back to my (if I say so myself) perfect suggestion? What percentage of the Roman economy was industrial? What percentage services? What percentage agriculture?

[Gelston]

Scale is definitely relative. They PRIMARY division between an agrarian society and an industrial in the emphasis placed on city life as opposed to rural existence. The city of Rome itself could not support itself on nearby lands. It had to import from Egypt and other locations. The Romans had entire cities that existed solely for entertainment, much like our Las Vegas. The Industrial Revolution was just what the words say.. A revolution in industry. It doesn't mean industry didn't exist before it. The city was the primary for the Romans and everywhere they went. They linked each city with a complex roadway system to stimulate trade and also allow the Legions to march quickly. They created Aqueducts that traveled for miles upon miles to support those cities. They mass produced/cut marble and other stone to build these cities. The had massive smelting operations to create the iron and steel needed for the continuation of their empire. They felled entire forested areas to create massive fleets.

Again, if you go through EVERY criteria for what an Industrialized Society is, Rome fills those criteria. Most of Rome's economy was via trade, services, and heavily fuelled by conquest in the rising periods.

Edit to add: Oh yeah, they also had tons of fast food joints. Doesn't get much more industrialized than that!

[Latrinsorm]

Gelly, did agriculture exist before the Agricultural Revolution?

If the primary division between agrarian/industrial is urban, why don't they call it an urban economy? the Urban Revolution? Why use a different word unless it means something different?

Do you have a source for "Most of Rome's economy was... services"? That would be a direct way of ending this.

[Warriorbird]

Gelly, did agriculture exist before the Agricultural Revolution?

If the primary division between agrarian/industrial is urban, why don't they call it an urban economy? the Urban Revolution? Why use a different word unless it means something different?

Do you have a source for "Most of Rome's economy was... services"? That would be a direct way of ending this.

You just said sociology a bit ago. I now understand the problem. While mocking pretty much all the Roman historians you're attempting to shift outliers into uniformity in service of your thesis.

[Gelston]

Gelly, did agriculture exist before the Agricultural Revolution?

If the primary division between agrarian/industrial is urban, why don't they call it an urban economy? the Urban Revolution? Why use a different word unless it means something different?

Do you have a source for "Most of Rome's economy was... services"? That would be a direct way of ending this.

Yes, just like industry existed before the industrial revolution, which you are saying it didn't. I don't know the purpose of that question.

I didn't say most of it was services. I said it was trade, services, and conquest. Slavery was a HUGE part of it. Of course, everything depends on what time in history you are referring to. While 2nd century BC Rome was very much Agrarian, 2nd century AD was not. I don't feel like discussing this with you anymore, so don't look for any further replies.... Because you keep saying the same thing over again without adding anything new.

[Valthissa]

you're attempting to shift outliers into uniformity in service of your thesis.

If you can verb this phrase we can use it in responding to many of Latrin's posts.

[Latrinsorm]

You just said sociology a bit ago. I now understand the problem. While mocking pretty much all the Roman historiansHey hey, just because Gibbon was a hack doesn't mean I mocked the entire field.
you're attempting to shift outliers into uniformity in service of your thesis.I very much disagree with that characterization. To my mind, the theses I have presented are:
1. The Roman Empire was agrarian in nature.
2. Humans seek larger political units.
3. Humans resist being forced to do something, even if it's what they would have wanted to do anyway.

Frankly, if anyone is citing outliers for (1) it is Gelston. As for (2), if you don't like the particular countries I cited, pick any other one in the world except Singapore - that's the only legitimate city-state we've got. Balkanization is a very real phenomenon that would undermine (2) on its own, but that's where (3) comes in.

I don't understand this. If I really am picking outliers, it should be extremely easy to find counter-examples at least at a one to one rate rather than complaining about the style of my position. No offense, but it seems pretty convenient that your retort requires you to do no actual work.
Yes, just like industry existed before the industrial revolution, which you are saying it didn't. I don't know the purpose of that question.The purpose of the question is that a quantitative shift is associated with a qualitative result. People have been picking berries since before there people, but it is not useful to therefore describe all human society as "agricultural". In the same way, people have been making things since before there were people, but it is not useful to therefore describe all human society as "industrial". A certain means of production is required (in each case) to make certain %s of resource devotion possible. See Mao. You can't just dictate that 80% of your economy will be industrial and the remaining 20% will be able to sustain them with agriculture, even when everyone goes along with it.
Because you keep saying the same thing over again without adding anything new.I offered an empirical, objective, mathematical way to settle this. You refused. This is me not offering anything new?

You challenged me to look up definitions, I obliged and found two that inarguably refuted your position, you ignored them. This is me repeating myself?

[Warriorbird]

Hey hey, just because Gibbon was a hack doesn't mean I mocked the entire field.I very much disagree with that characterization. To my mind, the theses I have presented are:
1. The Roman Empire was agrarian in nature.
2. Humans seek larger political units.
3. Humans resist being forced to do something, even if it's what they would have wanted to do anyway.

Frankly, if anyone is citing outliers for (1) it is Gelston. As for (2), if you don't like the particular countries I cited, pick any other one in the world except Singapore - that's the only legitimate city-state we've got. Balkanization is a very real phenomenon that would undermine (2) on its own, but that's where (3) comes in.

I don't understand this. If I really am picking outliers, it should be extremely easy to find counter-examples at least at a one to one rate rather than complaining about the style of my position. No offense, but it seems pretty convenient that your retort requires you to do no actual work.The purpose of the question is that a quantitative shift is associated with a qualitative result. People have been picking berries since before there people, but it is not useful to therefore describe all human society as "agricultural". In the same way, people have been making things since before there were people, but it is not useful to therefore describe all human society as "industrial". A certain means of production is required (in each case) to make certain %s of resource devotion possible. See Mao. You can't just dictate that 80% of your economy will be industrial and the remaining 20% will be able to sustain them with agriculture, even when everyone goes along with it.I offered an empirical, objective, mathematical way to settle this. You refused. This is me not offering anything new?

You challenged me to look up definitions, I obliged and found two that inarguably refuted your position, you ignored them. This is me repeating myself?

I thought your claim was humans sought the largest political units, not "larger" ones. Humans don't seek the largest political units. I already listed two examples. That and the simple whole "Attempt to unify the world and everybody will stop you." problem. Empires lead to divisions. We're remarkable because of just how long we have lasted.

[Latrinsorm]

I thought your claim was humans sought the largest political units, not "larger" ones.I meant it in a "progressively larger" sense. Obviously you don't worry about uniting the globe when you haven't built a city yet. We have always been and will always be tribal, until we decided that cities were a good idea. We have always been and will always be urban, until we decided that this "nation" thing was worth a try. We have always been and will always be nationalist, until...
Humans don't seek the largest political units. I already listed two examples.The extent to which the various Soviet Republics wanted in on the USSR is obviously variable, but most were honestly interested in it. That the USSR eventually failed doesn't mean they didn't want it in the first place. It means that people don't always get what they want, that hard work sometimes fails, that eternal vigilance is a good idea.

Your second example was a perfect example of my point (3) - Poland and France didn't say "ja ve are ze Germans now". They were conquered by force, therefore they resisted. Now they're all great buddies in the European Union, and while they haven't given up all (or even most) of their sovereignty they have given up some. Given. Not taken. There's a man with a particular set of skills who would have something to say about that.
That and the simple whole "Attempt to unify the world and everybody will stop you." problem.You keep saying this, but you have never explained how we overcame that to get to nations in the first place. What is your explanation of the process that allowed cities to coalesce into Germany, kingdoms to coalesce into England, but absolutely will not allow Germany and England to coalesce into Europa? May I remind you that nations are of totally arbitrary size in both geography and population.
Empires lead to divisions. We're remarkable because of just how long we have lasted.Are we? or is our stability unremarkable in the context of industrialized nations?

[Latrinsorm]

You just honestly suggested that the Iron Curtain mostly went up voluntarily and compared the EU to Nazi Germany.The Iron Curtain refers to the buffer/puppet states rather than the actual SSRs, and it happened post-WW2 rather than at the formation of the USSR. Did the component SSRs (excepting the Baltics) voluntarily join the USSR or not? If yes, what would you call that but people seeking a larger political unit?

And you bet I'll compare the EU to Nazi Germany in the sense that they are a larger political unit involving France, Germany, and Poland. If you would like to claim that France and Poland were not conquered by Nazi Germany or that one or more of those nations are not members of the EU, I will consider whether the comparison is flawed.
Counterexample the next. Post Tito Yugoslavia. It's an excellent illustration of why we don't sing Kum-bay-ya and have your one world government. It's as silly as members of the right wing who have conspiracy theorists about it (and the ones who entertainingly think we should)(Rocktar).The formation of Yugoslavia is my (3) thesis in spades. "I liberated you! Now you belong to me." is no more congenial formation for Tito than it was for Stalin.

[Warriorbird]

I don't think I'd suggest that the SSRs or the Iron Curtain states were entirely voluntary.

The EU and Nazi Germany are a ridiculous comparison. Nazi Germany also broke down quite handily. The Eurozone may as well.

Tito conquered and Yugoslavia couldn't cope with its internal divisions after him.

[Latrinsorm]

When did I say it occurred before the end of WW2? It wasn't voluntary.The salient point is that it also wasn't the formation of the USSR. I'm surprised by your tack on this, I would have guessed you would just dismiss the USSR as an "outlier" rather than merely ignore the facts of its creation.
The EU and Nazi Germany are a ridiculous comparison. Nazi Germany also broke down quite handily. The Eurozone may as well.I have explained why Nazi Germany breaking down is not relevant to thesis (2) by way of thesis (3). The Eurozone might break down, and if it does, would this evidence that international unions are impossible or merely that this particular one was ill-conceived?
Tito conquered and Yugoslavia couldn't cope with its internal divisions after him.Had Tito lived to be 100, Yugoslavia would have disintegrated anyway. If you honestly believe those tensions suddenly emerged ex nihilo immediately following his death, there's nothing more to say.

[Warriorbird]

You suggested that these states just decided "Gosh, gee, we're gonna form the USSR and these friendly states just want to take part post WW2!" It's really silly.

Modern and ancient history are filled with examples of empires breaking down due to size/divisions. I don't think it forms a simple "Next step!" from the nation. Not with all the divisions and opinions in the world.

Tito functioned as a pin that held Yugoslavia (with its thousand year tensions) together. Without him there was nothing. This certainly doesn't argue that states created like that are strong.

[Methais]

Tito

http://ecwfrenchtribute.free.fr/HTLM/Photos/T/Tito_Santana/Tito_Santana_-_Mercid_Solis_12.JPG

[cwolff]

You suggested that these states just decided "Gosh, gee, we're gonna form the USSR and these friendly states just want to take part post WW2!" It's really silly.

Modern and ancient history are filled with examples of empires breaking down due to size/divisions. I don't think it forms a simple "Next step!" from the nation. Not with all the divisions and opinions in the world.

Tito functioned as a pin that held Yugoslavia (with its thousand year tensions) together. Without him there was nothing. This certainly doesn't argue that states created like that are strong.

Most of the SSR's become part of the USSR in the 20's a few in the 30's and none post WWII.

There are a lot of examples of empire breaking down. What's interesting is that we haven't discarded the idea completely and humans keep trying to consolidate bigger and bigger political structures. Sure there are setbacks but the idea keep growing. Everything tends to centralize.

[Jarvan]

I have explained why Nazi Germany breaking down is not relevant to thesis (2) by way of thesis (3). The Eurozone might break down, and if it does, would this evidence that international unions are impossible or merely that this particular one was ill-conceived?

This is starting to sound like.. "if it doesn't break down it proves my point, and if it does break down my point is still valid and it's just aberration".

Sounds a lot like Climate Change to me.

[Jarvan]

Most of the SSR's become part of the USSR in the 20's a few in the 30's and none post WWII.

There are a lot of examples of empire breaking down. What's interesting is that we haven't discarded the idea completely and humans keep trying to consolidate bigger and bigger political structures. Sure there are setbacks but the idea keep growing. Everything tends to centralize.

I don't think Any Country looks towards Empires anymore. Except maybe the few backwards ones like Iran that want a Caliphate.

America isn't forming any more colonies, or even offering statehood to anyone else. England isn't, Japan.. nope. Maybe China.. no.. they just buy things. Russia? No.. they just tell people they are part of Russia now, even if they don't want to be. But they aren't trying to expand. Wasn't the European Union basically formed to compete economically with the US? Not to mention, really look at the EU. It almost all rides on the back of Germany's money right now. If Germany says there has to be Austerity, there has to be Austerity. They are not a nation. It's a VERY loosely combined bunch of nations.

The days of Empires are behind us. We will never be united as one people. Because guess what, we are not one people. Who is going to change their ways or beliefs? I personally think the only reason he US has lasted this long, is that our Government keeps the people so pissed at itself, that we don't have time or energy to get pissed at each other. Not to mention, Sports games help with some of that.

Obviously it isn't evidence, but look at every single movie/TV show with a USA that was visited by some form of destruction. We break down into smaller units fighting each other. Not the other way around.

[Latrinsorm]

You suggested that these states just decided "Gosh, gee, we're gonna form the USSR and these friendly states just want to take part post WW2!" It's really silly.Quite to the contrary. I'm suggesting those states decided "golly gee willikers, we're gonna form the USSR". Then everything was fine. Then the war. Then Stalin said "hai guyz want to be the pawns in the Cold War?" and non-SSR Eastern Europe said "...no?" and Stalin stroked his nuclear warhead menacingly and they said "jk haha okay!!! (hey let's resist)".

Everything pre-war is thesis (2) - stable. Everything post-war is thesis (3) - unstable. This is a coherent explanation. That you disagree with it doesn't make it silly.
Modern and ancient history are filled with examples of empires breaking down due to size/divisions. I don't think it forms a simple "Next step!" from the nation. Not with all the divisions and opinions in the world.There are divisions in any group of two human beings. Consider, if you will, the set {Latrinsorm, Warriorbird}. Wow, look at these disagreements! We must not be able to function in the same political entity. And yet unlike Terrence you and I each voted in the last Presidential election, and probably even voted for the same fellow. Inconceivable?
Tito functioned as a pin that held Yugoslavia (with its thousand year tensions) together. Without him there was nothing. This certainly doesn't argue that states created like that are strong.Created like WHAT? You are not appreciating my distinction. It's fine if you don't believe it, but I'd appreciate it if you don't tell me that I don't believe it.
This is starting to sound like.. "if it doesn't break down it proves my point, and if it does break down my point is still valid and it's just aberration".It has come to something if offering a coherent, comprehensive explanation is evidence that I'm wrong.
We will never be united as one people. Because guess what, we are not one people.We share the same biology, regardless of ideology.
Who is going to change their ways or beliefs?As it turns out, everybody. I know you know what Prussia was, why do you think there is no Prussia anymore? Don't you think the Prussians had pride in their ways and beliefs? pride in their sovereignty? open contempt for various other parts of what would become Germany? ...and yet, there came a Germany. Prussians were able to put aside their parochialism, are you (Jarvan) stronger or weaker of will than the Prussians?
Obviously it isn't evidence, but look at every single movie/TV show with a USA that was visited by some form of destruction. We break down into smaller units fighting each other. Not the other way around.Star Wars - galactic empire
Star Trek - galactic federation
Independence Day - global coalition
Alien Apocalypse - shock results in paralysis, cured by an osteopath, national (at least) coalition

There are of course many apocalyptic(!) interpretations as well, but human artwork is apparently just as capable of global hope as internecine despair.

[Warriorbird]

Quite to the contrary. I'm suggesting those states decided "golly gee willikers, we're gonna form the USSR". Then everything was fine. Then the war. Then Stalin said "hai guyz want to be the pawns in the Cold War?" and non-SSR Eastern Europe said "...no?" and Stalin stroked his nuclear warhead menacingly and they said "jk haha okay!!! (hey let's resist)".

Everything pre-war is thesis (2) - stable. Everything post-war is thesis (3) - unstable. This is a coherent explanation. That you disagree with it doesn't make it silly.There are divisions in any group of two human beings. Consider, if you will, the set {Latrinsorm, Warriorbird}. Wow, look at these disagreements! We must not be able to function in the same political entity. And yet unlike Terrence you and I each voted in the last Presidential election, and probably even voted for the same fellow. Inconceivable?Created like WHAT? You are not appreciating my distinction. It's fine if you don't believe it, but I'd appreciate it if you don't tell me that I don't believe it.It has come to something if offering a coherent, comprehensive explanation is evidence that I'm wrong.We share the same biology, regardless of ideology.As it turns out, everybody. I know you know what Prussia was, why do you think there is no Prussia anymore? Don't you think the Prussians had pride in their ways and beliefs? pride in their sovereignty? open contempt for various other parts of what would become Germany? ...and yet, there came a Germany. Prussians were able to put aside their parochialism, are you (Jarvan) stronger or weaker of will than the Prussians?Star Wars - galactic empire
Star Trek - galactic federation
Independence Day - global coalition
Alien Apocalypse - shock results in paralysis, cured by an osteopath, national (at least) coalition

There are of course many apocalyptic(!) interpretations as well, but human artwork is apparently just as capable of global hope as internecine despair.

All I admit that as far as logical fallacies go "argument from sci fi films" is pretty fun.

I think the whole one world government ideal that you and Rocktar have would be pretty great if it weren't as silly a classical ideal as the "end of history."

[cwolff]

All I admit that as far as logical fallacies go "argument from sci fi films" is pretty fun.

I think the whole one world government ideal that you and Rocktar have would be pretty great if it weren't as silly a classical ideal as the "end of history."

I think the issue here is that when one mentions world gov't most react negatively. Much like human extinction. No one is saying that it will happen anytime soon (relatively speaking) but it probably will happen. Global Gov't I mean. Extinction will definitely happen.

[Back]

I think the issue here is that when one mentions world gov't most react negatively. Much like human extinction. No one is saying that it will happen anytime soon (relatively speaking) but it probably will happen. Global Gov't I mean. Extinction will definitely happen.

I disagree with that. There are a few interesting theories about our purpose in this infinite universe. Population seems to me to be the most basic plausible conclusion.

The whole "the universe made us to understand itself" thing is a little... IDK, hipster.

[cwolff]

I disagree with that. There are a few interesting theories about our purpose in this infinite universe. Population seems to me to be the most basic plausible conclusion.

The whole "the universe made us to understand itself" thing is a little... IDK, hipster.

Doesn't this assume that we have a purpose?

99.9% of all species are extinct. There is no reason to believe that homo sapiens sapiens will live forever. Especially when one considers that of all the species, we're the only capable of engineering our demise. One way to keep us from ending our little bit of time here early is global government. This might assume that we maintain our current population growth and stability.

Of course, if we lose a few billion people to something crazy like a new disease or a meteor the folks left will be setback enough that the idea of governing the whole planet with one leading body will be low on the priority list.

[Back]

Doesn't this assume that we have a purpose?

99.9% of all species are extinct. There is no reason to believe that homo sapiens sapiens will live forever. Especially when one considers that of all the species, we're the only capable of engineering our demise. One way to keep us from ending our little bit of time here early is global government. This might assume that we maintain our current population growth and stability.

Of course, if we lose a few billion people to something crazy like a new disease or a meteor the folks left will be setback enough that the idea of governing the whole planet with one leading body will be low on the priority list.

From humans to bacteria the only purpose is to live.

While life seems limited to our little corner of the universe... no matter how big the universe may be... our little corner could possibly populate it.

Or not. Buzz kill.

[crb]

Doesn't this assume that we have a purpose?

99.9% of all species are extinct. There is no reason to believe that homo sapiens sapiens will live forever. Especially when one considers that of all the species, we're the only capable of engineering our demise. One way to keep us from ending our little bit of time here early is global government. This might assume that we maintain our current population growth and stability.

Of course, if we lose a few billion people to something crazy like a new disease or a meteor the folks left will be setback enough that the idea of governing the whole planet with one leading body will be low on the priority list.

Good god man. You are a rare bird indeed, rarely do you encounter someone who wants to be oppressed. A one world government would not be a utopia, with no external forces to keep it in check a one world government would grow to oppress everyone and reduce quality of life across the board. It would be a horrible horrible thing.

[Latrinsorm]

That's an interesting point. Does it imply that the United States' system of internal checks and balances is useless, a paper shield against tyranny?

Of course, it is not the case that the only possible results are utopia and dystopia, but the external/internal forces point is still interesting.

[Parkbandit]

Doesn't this assume that we have a purpose?

99.9% of all species are extinct. There is no reason to believe that homo sapiens sapiens will live forever. Especially when one considers that of all the species, we're the only capable of engineering our demise. One way to keep us from ending our little bit of time here early is global government. This might assume that we maintain our current population growth and stability.

Of course, if we lose a few billion people to something crazy like a new disease or a meteor the folks left will be setback enough that the idea of governing the whole planet with one leading body will be low on the priority list.

Out of those 99.9%, we are also the only ones capable of engineering our savior.

If we go extinct.. it'll be because of a cosmic reason, not because we caused it.

[Parkbandit]

From humans to bacteria the only purpose is to live.

While life seems limited to our little corner of the universe... no matter how big the universe may be... our little corner could possibly populate it.

Or not. Buzz kill.

Life seems limited to our planet?

It's extremely unlikely. And it's also unlikely we will populate the universe...we will be lucky to get out of this solar system.

[Warriorbird]

That's an interesting point. Does it imply that the United States' system of internal checks and balances is useless, a paper shield against tyranny?

Of course, it is not the case that the only possible results are utopia and dystopia, but the external/internal forces point is still interesting.

It would be if we had universal surveillance.

[Latrinsorm]

It would be if we had universal surveillance....which part, the paper shield part or the dilemma part?

[Warriorbird]

...which part, the paper shield part or the dilemma part?

The paper shield obviously.

[crb]

I ultimately think external checks do more than internal ones, or more specifically, that freedom of movement is a very important factor in ensuring the freedom and prosperity of human civilization. Why is it that more or less every totalitarian regime restricts this freedom? Building border fences not to keep people out but to keep people in? Because they know, given the opportunity, people without the right to vote can still vote with their feet and flee, unless government force is used to keep them in country.

Likewise, its why I'm a big fan of federalism, the 10th amendment, and state's rights. Giving people the ability to vote with their feet within the US. There is probably no greater check on government power and abuse than the power of an individual to flee to a different jurisdiction if they desire.

Since we lack personal spaceships, one global government would remove that natural hedge for freedom.

There are also regular competitive benefits to having multiple competing governments. It may offend someone's sensibilities to think of us all competing for a limited resource (the earth's natural resources) but that is how it is. Economic growth helps everyone, it might help some people more than others, but everyone is helped, and there is a strong incentive for our leaders not to reduce or harm economic growth, for if they do our relative power in the world is diminished, which means their power is diminished. So even if we had a king, and not an elected government, it would be in that king's personal self interest to make us a rich powerful happy country because that gives him more power on the international stage. If we had one world government our dear leaders wouldn't have any such motivation, the only way they can grow their power is to take more of it from the population. If we're going to assume everyone will act in their own self interest, which is generally the safest thing to do (always), you'd expect personal freedoms, economic growth, and quality of life all to diminish.

Then of course, external forces are largely what keeps military coups from happening. If we had a one world government the odds of it evolving into a military dictatorship I'd say would be pretty high.

In short, welcome to the Galactic Empire.

[crb]

Of course the scariest thing is that there are people out there who would be okay with all of that. Living life with less freedom, under a dictatorship, with lower quality of life, if only all people (outside of the military, ruling elites, and pigs named Snowball) were equally miserable. Some of them come to such a position out of perhaps arrogance, thinking that they're so smart and gifted and special that if not for XYZ currently existing they'd obviously be picked to be a ruling elite, like Kim Jong Il singing I'm so Ronery they don't think the world realizes how special and important they are. Others simply value equality (of outcome) so much above any other ideal that they're willing to sacrifice everything else to attain it.

[Warriorbird]

Of course the scariest thing is that there are people out there who would be okay with all of that. Living life with less freedom, under a dictatorship, with lower quality of life, if only all people (outside of the military, ruling elites, and pigs named Snowball) were equally miserable. Some of them come to such a position out of perhaps arrogance, thinking that they're so smart and gifted and special that if not for XYZ currently existing they'd obviously be picked to be a ruling elite, like Kim Jong Il singing I'm so Ronery they don't think the world realizes how special and important they are. Others simply value equality (of outcome) so much above any other ideal that they're willing to sacrifice everything else to attain it.

While I don't agree with all your economic views I follow right along with you there.

[Latrinsorm]

The paper shield obviously.I know as a liberal you're not familiar with them, but paper is no defense against bullets. Put a piece of paper over a camera? Boom. Totally foiled.
I ultimately think external checks do more than internal ones, or more specifically, that freedom of movement is a very important factor in ensuring the freedom and prosperity of human civilization. Why is it that more or less every totalitarian regime restricts this freedom? Building border fences not to keep people out but to keep people in? Because they know, given the opportunity, people without the right to vote can still vote with their feet and flee, unless government force is used to keep them in country.This sounds like a necessary but not sufficient condition. You can't legally leave the US without a passport, that doesn't mean the US is a totalitarian regime.
There are also regular competitive benefits to having multiple competing governments. It may offend someone's sensibilities to think of us all competing for a limited resource (the earth's natural resources) but that is how it is. Economic growth helps everyone, it might help some people more than others, but everyone is helped, and there is a strong incentive for our leaders not to reduce or harm economic growth, for if they do our relative power in the world is diminished, which means their power is diminished. So even if we had a king, and not an elected government, it would be in that king's personal self interest to make us a rich powerful happy country because that gives him more power on the international stage. If we had one world government our dear leaders wouldn't have any such motivation, the only way they can grow their power is to take more of it from the population. If we're going to assume everyone will act in their own self interest, which is generally the safest thing to do (always), you'd expect personal freedoms, economic growth, and quality of life all to diminish.Three things here:

1. A party must by definition expend resources to compete. This is most vividly illustrated in the military and advertising fields. Removing that competition removes that cost. It is possible it also removes a spur to innovate and so be better able to compete, but the greatest advances in science come not from engineers but guys sitting around theorizing with no eye towards application. Newton wasn't trying to build a Gatling gun. Einstein wasn't trying to build a GPS.

2. Everyone does not benefit from a competition, because in a competition by definition someone must lose. If you and I share a cookie, we each get half. If you and I fistfight over a cookie, one of us is getting none, the cookie probably gets mashed in the fracas, and both of us are going to blow hundreds of silvers on herbs for our minors. How many cookies could we have bought for those silvers? If that's not a universal principle of economics, I don't know what is.

3. To my knowledge you do not rob banks, does this mean you would not benefit from having millions of dollars? Or does it mean that you robbing a bank is only in your self-interest if you get away with it? Does it follow that taking power as a despot is only in a ruler's self-interest if they succeed? And if the prospective despot does not believe they will succeed, they do not pursue it. Take Bill Clinton. He absolutely has less power now than when he was in office, and yet he willingly left.

The problem with your theory is not that it is egoism, it is that it is unenlightened egoism. You do not propose everyone pursues their own self-interest, you propose they do so as stupidly and short-sightedly as possible. And sometimes they do! But not "always".

[cwolff]

Good god man. You are a rare bird indeed, rarely do you encounter someone who wants to be oppressed. A one world government would not be a utopia, with no external forces to keep it in check a one world government would grow to oppress everyone and reduce quality of life across the board. It would be a horrible horrible thing.

Thank you for proving my point below:


I think the issue here is that when one mentions world gov't most react negatively. Much like human extinction. No one is saying that it will happen anytime soon (relatively speaking) but it probably will happen. Global Gov't I mean. Extinction will definitely happen.

edit: TY to Jarvan for pointing out that some are promoting Global Gov't.

I am not advocating global government as the best of all possible worlds. Only predicting that it will happen. I know you may feel threatened by this but get a grip dude. You're assumptions are making an ass out of you.

[Methais]

Thank you for proving my point below:



No one here is advocating global government as the best of all possible worlds. I don't even think anyone is promoting it. We're only predicting that it will happen. I know you may feel threatened by this but get a grip dude. You're assumptions are making an ass out of you.

What about when you said...


One way to keep us from ending our little bit of time here early is global government.

That certainly wasn't just a prediction. According to your words, if we don't have a global government, we'll become extinct that much sooner.

[Latrinsorm]

A solution yes, but only "the best of all possible worlds" if you believe that such a world involves humanity. Given Alabama, that's a difficult proposition to defend.

[Jarvan]

Thank you for proving my point below:



No one here is advocating global government as the best of all possible worlds. I don't even think anyone is promoting it. We're only predicting that it will happen. I know you may feel threatened by this but get a grip dude. You're assumptions are making an ass out of you.

Back has.

[cwolff]

Back has.

Is Back promoting it or just talking about it. I haven't noticed his posts too much on this one. I'll scroll back and check it out.

[Methais]

A solution yes, but only "the best of all possible worlds" if you believe that such a world involves humanity. Given Alabama, that's a difficult proposition to defend.

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/article/media_slots/photos/001/057/697/hi-res-159095388_crop_exact.jpg?w=340&h=225&q=85

[Latrinsorm]

Case in point, eh? Go out to google and type in "nick saban is". My suggestions were {a douche, a jerk, a liar, satan, evil}... and he does wear red... hmm...

[crb]

2. Everyone does not benefit from a competition, because in a competition by definition someone must lose. If you and I share a cookie, we each get half. If you and I fistfight over a cookie, one of us is getting none, the cookie probably gets mashed in the fracas, and both of us are going to blow hundreds of silvers on herbs for our minors. How many cookies could we have bought for those silvers? If that's not a universal principle of economics, I don't know what is.

Common misconception coming from people with your world view. The analogy isn't even that accurate.

Two farmers are competing to bring their crops to market. John and Bob. In an attempt to get ahead of John, Bob is always tinkering and trying to figure out how to make his farm more efficient. Bob invents a better plow and is able to produce more crops per acre with less effort. Bob is so successful he buys John's farm. Bob's labor saving device frees people like John from having to work in agriculture, John takes up a new trade. Who has won? Who has lost? John may have lost the farm competition, but he and his descendants will be better off, as will human civilization, because of advances in agriculture spawned by his competition.

You perhaps mean competition over limited resources? (cookies?) You'd think that people would compete to the point where a resource is destroyed? We actually have a good real world example of that in fishery management. Fishermen compete like crazy, and yet they've been largely able to group together and form organizations that protect and maintain their natural resource. People on balance are smart enough to realize it is in their best interest not to over harvest something like fish. It doesn't mean they don't compete, they still go out and try to get as many fish as they can, some boats can get skunked, some boats get a big payday, but they've all agreed not to overfish to ruin the resource. If there are poachers of course, the fishermen help police that since they feel as if they have ownership over the resource. The places where such things are problems are where no one feels ownership over the resource (tragedy of the commons).

For nonrenewable resources like oil we can't really destroy the cookie, and competition is certainly good, it gave us things like fracking, which is fueling the boom in manufacturing in this country, and now we've come full circle. But yes, we win, the Saudi's and Russians lose, on oil.

Ultimately, the economy is not zero sum. Progressives as a whole usually fail to realize that, which might be your issue. Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't get rich by making us poor, they got rich by making us richer.

The industrial revolution is perhaps the best way to illustrate this. Lots of people lost their jobs, people hated new machinery and would attack it and try to destroy it, you could call all them losers, perhaps. But considering the huge advancements in civilization brought on by the industrial revolution did those people really lose? They probably lived longer with a higher standard of living than they would of had it never happened.



3. To my knowledge you do not rob banks, does this mean you would not benefit from having millions of dollars? Or does it mean that you robbing a bank is only in your self-interest if you get away with it? Does it follow that taking power as a despot is only in a ruler's self-interest if they succeed? And if the prospective despot does not believe they will succeed, they do not pursue it. Take Bill Clinton. He absolutely has less power now than when he was in office, and yet he willingly left.

You miss the point entirely. I don't rob banks because I don't want to get shot, or go to prison. I'm subject to the laws of my government. Bill Clinton didn't try to usurp the government because he didn't want to get shot or go to prison. But yes, also people have morals that tell them what is right or wrong, I'm probably one of those people, Bill maybe a little less so (I don't think I'd cheat on my wife, but then again I'm not married to Hillary). Not everyone does though, look around the world, there are lots of people who have usurped governments sitting in power right now. One thing keeping these people in check are external forces. Internal forces do too, but in more modern times revolutions are more difficult without external help. See Syria and Libya. Libya had help, and was successful, Syria has not had help and Assad is winning. Even the US had help from the French for our revolution.

If we had one world government, and someone lacking in morals who wanted to style himself a king came to power (because, again, those people do exist) we'd lack external forces to help prevent it.

[Warriorbird]

Case in point, eh? Go out to google and type in "nick saban is". My suggestions were {a douche, a jerk, a liar, satan, evil}... and he does wear red... hmm...

I think you'd even find that most people in Louisiana would grudgingly admit he's a damn good football coach.


Back has.

Latrin too.

[cwolff]

Common misconception coming from people with your world view. The analogy isn't even that accurate.

Two farmers are competing to bring their crops to market. John and Bob. In an attempt to get ahead of John, Bob is always tinkering and trying to figure out how to make his farm more efficient. Bob invents a better plow and is able to produce more crops per acre with less effort. Bob is so successful he buys John's farm. Bob's labor saving device frees people like John from having to work in agriculture, John takes up a new trade. Who has won? Who has lost? John may have lost the farm competition, but he and his descendants will be better off, as will human civilization, because of advances in agriculture spawned by his competition.

You perhaps mean competition over limited resources? (cookies?) You'd think that people would compete to the point where a resource is destroyed? We actually have a good real world example of that in fishery management. Fishermen compete like crazy, and yet they've been largely able to group together and form organizations that protect and maintain their natural resource. People on balance are smart enough to realize it is in their best interest not to over harvest something like fish. It doesn't mean they don't compete, they still go out and try to get as many fish as they can, some boats can get skunked, some boats get a big payday, but they've all agreed not to overfish to ruin the resource. If there are poachers of course, the fishermen help police that since they feel as if they have ownership over the resource. The places where such things are problems are where no one feels ownership over the resource (tragedy of the commons).

Fisheries are a better pro-government example than not. It takes government intervention to keep the fisheries alive because the fishermen aren't about to not go out when their competition does.

If we had one world government, and someone lacking in morals who wanted to style himself a king came to power (because, again, those people do exist) we'd lack external forces to help prevent it.

Don't get too hung up on internal and external. Think more of forces. Parliaments are a good example. Disparate political groups can cut a deal to take down leadership. No reason why this wouldn't apply to global government too. Global government is just government.

[Methais]

I think you'd even find that most people in Louisiana would grudgingly admit he's a damn good football coach.



Latrin too.

Well I mean LSU did win at least one national championship with him, and he's been 3-1 vs. LSU since Les Miles took over, so it's pretty impossible to deny. And I don't even give a shit about college football.

[Latrinsorm]

Common misconception coming from people with your world view. The analogy isn't even that accurate.Therefore it is somewhat accurate! See, we can agree on stuff! :)
People on balance are smart enough to realize it is in their best interest not to over harvest something like fish.I'm going to be honest, I have no idea if fisherpersons do or don't. I do remember the Dust Bowl, though, and Nietzsche is always going on about soil exhaustion, and our consumption of oil-based products really does not suggest long-range thinking. I don't see how any of those would count as "tragedy of the commons", especially since I spent fifty friggin' dollars to fill up my tank last week. It does incentivize people to find more oil (as you mention with fracking), but as you say, it is a limited resource nevertheless.

I think the simplest example of destruction of contested resources is the scorched earth tactic. It got rid of Napoleon, but certainly we agree that it didn't put Muscovites in too terribly good shape either. It is not terribly common in warfare (or perhaps warfare is not terribly common) anymore, but it exists in many other fields.
Ultimately, the economy is not zero sum. Progressives as a whole usually fail to realize that, which might be your issue. Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't get rich by making us poor, they got rich by making us richer.And they say there's no such thing as a free lunch! You can't make something out of nothing, you're not the federal government.
The industrial revolution is perhaps the best way to illustrate this. Lots of people lost their jobs, people hated new machinery and would attack it and try to destroy it, you could call all them losers, perhaps. But considering the huge advancements in civilization brought on by the industrial revolution did those people really lose? They probably lived longer with a higher standard of living than they would of had it never happened.I agree that the IR was a good thing, but I don't see how it qualifies as a "competition". To me it more qualifies as what I talked about: pure science messed around until steam power became feasible, then the world industrialized. Application seeks the theory, not the other way around. You know what really helps scientific research? Not getting bombed, or knifed, or sent to die in a Godforsaken swamp, or sent to punch the clock in a factory. We have 2 million American soldiers. Surely at least one of them could be making scientifically relevant advances if they weren't policing their brass and polishing their boots all day. How much science do you think we could get done with $684 billion?
If we had one world government, and someone lacking in morals who wanted to style himself a king came to power (because, again, those people do exist) we'd lack external forces to help prevent it.Okay. What external force could have resisted the might of the United States armed forces circa 1999? If Bill Clinton had said "Behold the Haig! Regardless of the Hague, I am in charge and will bomb your shit if you mess with me", which nation or coalition of nations would have been able to stand against him? Which would have dared to? Which would have cared to?

We agree that he would have gone straight to prison if he tried that... but why wouldn't a hypothetical world government head of state? Our internal policing apparati became much stronger (and in some cases were invented) during the move from cities to countries, why would they suddenly vanish in a global polity?

I feel like you are assuming the worst for a global polity and assuming the best for a national polity, and this inconsistency is not very sporting of you.
I think you'd even find that most people in Louisiana would grudgingly admit he's a damn good football coach.Encouraging young men to throw their health/lives away for the promise of glory/fame/money sounds very, very, very much like something the adversary would do. Also, is there any proof that Nick Saban doesn't play the violin? I thought not.